the problem I forsee is that people who follow a system don't think too far out of that system. in other words, even if someone tries leading the charge out of an oppressive system, it still might not hold because the people aren't ready to leave the old system and will go right back to it.

The current duke is only two years in the position. He first lowered taxes... suddenly, there's a demand to pay "back taxes"... My suspicion is that maybe somone else has quietly usurped power and wants the old, heavy taxes, retroactively.

Someone local? Or is there a king who has come down with hobnailed boots on the less larcenous young duke? How old is this duke, anyway?

The current duke is only two years in the position. He first lowered taxes... suddenly, there's a demand to pay "back taxes"... My suspicion is that maybe somone else has quietly usurped power and wants the old, heavy taxes, retroactively.

Someone local? Or is there a king who has come down with hobnailed boots on the less larcenous young duke? How old is this duke, anyway?

Given history, it's likely that either:

1. The king is bracing for a war, and needs to build up the treasury, or

2. The Duke needs to build up the treasury and prepare for a war.

Heck, in Real Life, some of the Crown Jewels of England were lost forever by selling them to fund the army and navy...

Werekitty wrote:Socialist? What socialist? I see a tyranical aristocrat.

I'd agree that this stupidity is not socialism. It is tyranny and not capitalist either. RH is exploring an old generation of the freedom/tyranny argument that has largely been settled in the world. Since the old is become new these days, it might be educational.

which is more important--- the ideological rhetoric of a social system... or the actual, on the ground reality of its practices?

BASIC ECONOMICS: Wealth is produced by the application of human ingenuity to raw resources. And rhetorical smoke-blowing regardless, in all sociopolitical systems at some point someone decides how that wealth is to be distributed. <I>and all power lies, not in the hand of the arbitrary "owner" of the resources, not in the maker of the wealth, but in the hands of the one who decides how the wealth will be distributed.</i> When the owner and creator and spender of wealth are all the same person, that is a free society.
Any other arrangement, there is no freedom.
And capitalism is the only system where the CREATOR of wealth and the OWNER and the SPENDER are all the same.

In a capitalist society, the moral principle of private property is the decider. He who OWNS and CREATES the wealth is the one who decides where it goes and where it is spent. The boy who takes a piece of driftwood and makes a flute OWNS that flute, and decides how it is to be used. The 9 to 5 worker owns his labor and time and trades it for money, which HE decides how to spend. The landowner holds the deed to an acre of land; whether he builds a house on it or farms it or sells it or just leaves it as an open meadow for his enjoyment, it is his decision.

In any other system, there is someone else who decides. Whether it's a king or a duke or a government bureaucracy or a Soviet central planner is irrelevant.

And the person who creates wealth solely to be distributed and spent by another is, by definition, a slave.

Feudalism and Socialism have the same premise: that the peasant needs someone else to decide how every coin is spent.

"What was that popping noise ?"
"A paradigm shifting without a clutch."
--Dilbert

What about the Muslim countries? I don't think they have the total economic taxation that both Feudalism and Socialism display, yet the "freedom" of behavior in Muslim countries would make a serf or Socialist citizen look like a Libertarian.

Lazerus wrote:You and Ann Rand can kiss my ass. Yes, capitalism is great, people deserve the rewards of their labors, etc etc, but when there is some basic social safety net, and a basic level of universal education, as well as other simple social services (schools, national defense, etc), everyone is better off. Without that, we just slide into a vast rich/poor gap that can only end in revolt.

Socalism is about the good of all, the Duke in the comic is just an idiot. In that respect, he is very much like you.

Yes yes yes, that's all very nice sentiments and what all, but you have completely missed the obvious historical truth. I'll say it simply, in three words:

Socialism. Doesn't. Work.

This "basic social safety net" ends up with nasty bits of FUBAR such as the legislation which has so badly screwed over the French economy: unemployment at 9% (TWICE that of the US). GDP Growth at 1.6% (HALF that of the US). GDP per capita of $26,000 (again, half that of the US). Pay attention, this part's important: People work because they have something to lose if they don't, and something to gain if they do. Take that away, you end up with a bunch of folk who sit around on internet forums calling other people idiots.

It does not take a majority to prevail ... but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men. - attributed to Samuel Adams

“To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them.” - Richard Henry Lee

What makes me nervous is that I am worried is that this new Duke might be a bit naive. In an effort to make the people under his happy, he dropped the taxes. Well, sooner or later, SOMETHING had to be paid for (military force, inforstructure, buldings, payment to the King, what-have-you) and he thought 'Well, I just take it from the people, after that nice tax break, I am sure that will be happy to give me their possesions (to help pay for this thing).' In an effort to make people happy, in the long run this new Duke has done a great deal more damage. He is taking their very lives from them and he might very well be surprised that they would be upset by this. Of course, this is all hypothetical.

Jesus said to her, 'I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in Me, though he may die, he shall live. And whoever lives and believes in Me shall never die. Do you believe this?' John 11: 25-26
----
Want a new avatar? Contact me and I can set you up with a new sig pic or avatar, totally FREE!

Lazerus wrote:You and Ann Rand can kiss my ass. Yes, capitalism is great, people deserve the rewards of their labors, etc etc, but when there is some basic social safety net, and a basic level of universal education, as well as other simple social services (schools, national defense, etc), everyone is better off. Without that, we just slide into a vast rich/poor gap that can only end in revolt.

Socalism is about the good of all, the Duke in the comic is just an idiot. In that respect, he is very much like you.

Yes yes yes, that's all very nice sentiments and what all, but you have completely missed the obvious historical truth. I'll say it simply, in three words:

Socialism. Doesn't. Work.

This "basic social safety net" ends up with nasty bits of FUBAR such as the legislation which has so badly screwed over the French economy: unemployment at 9% (TWICE that of the US). GDP Growth at 1.6% (HALF that of the US). GDP per capita of $26,000 (again, half that of the US). Pay attention, this part's important: People work because they have something to lose if they don't, and something to gain if they do. Take that away, you end up with a bunch of folk who sit around on internet forums calling other people idiots.

France isn't socialist, their so socialist their effectivly communist. That's a whole different ball of wax.

Lazerus wrote:France isn't socialist, their so socialist their effectivly communist. That's a whole different ball of wax.

The difference between socialism and communism is methodology: socialists pass laws, while communists pass laws and then arrests anybody who dares dissent. Not, per se "pure" communism where everything is supposed to be happy bunnies and chocolate cream pies for everybody, but the way communism works out in the real world.

I have always been of the opinion that the only difference between Communism and Socialism is that the Socialists don't have all the guns yet.

So if France is not a good example of a socialist country, what is?

It does not take a majority to prevail ... but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men. - attributed to Samuel Adams

“To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them.” - Richard Henry Lee